I’ve seen enough human politics, both public and religious, to doubt that Paul got into the canon there AND got the title “apostle” (even though he never saw Christ in life, only in a vision he claimed) through politics or influence or something of the sort.
There’s enough potential for error in the recorded words of Jesus as transmitted through dozens of translations, and being hearsay (accounts by eyewitnesses, but still accounts written years after the fact) let alone assuming that everything Paul says is divinely inspired. Sorry, I’m not buying Paul. The four Gospels, sure (and probably others that are eyewitness accounts but not included in the canon for whatever reason). Paul exhorting people and being tightly linked to his time and place in so doing, not so much.
If societies with conflicting moralities have no interaction, there would be no problem. When they start interaction, people would create a common morality to avoid problems. If the common morality created by people is based on the law given by your God, I think our gods gave us the moral law too. So, even without your God, I think morality would exist in human society.
The interesting thing though is that Paul’s letters actually were written before the gospels, dating starting about 50 CE and being among the very earliest Christian writings. They also include interesting passages like this:
which imply that Paul to some degree was simply relating elements of a tradition that pre-existed him. His writings may well have been possessed by the people who wrote at least some of the Gospels, who were not eyewitnesses either and drew on different sources. He was influential throughout the history of the church from very early on, and several letters were traditionally attributed to him which he didn’t even write. It’s hard to write him off that easily! It’s even been argued that Christianity wouldn’t exist without him.
If you take the view that he wasn’t inspired though, you might find the “Q source” and Gospel of Thomas interesting–these are early and simpler collections of Jesus’s sayings, though with their own histories connected to the evolution of the communities that created them.
The implication, presumably, is that you should. People often find purpose and meaning in religion that they can’t find elsewhere. People who have had shit lives sometimes find in religion a reason for “loving themselves”. Places where people clearly don’t value their own lives are really, really horrible places.
Never been a big fan of Paul. He strikes me as slightly unhinged. I suppose it’s impossible to say what would have happened, but I don’t think it makes sense to say Christianity wouldn’t have existed without him.
I think you’re getting caught up with your God my God in the conversation. I never claimed to believe in A god or gods. I’m more of a deist or agnostic to be honest these days. I do know theology and can explain Islam, Judaism, Buddhism to some extent. But I’m by far more familiar with Christianity. Forget the theological part.
The philosophical problem is this, if morality is made up by us. Then it’s just that, made up. It could change anytime for anyone. So it’s not real, there’s no real moral code we should bother to hold ourselves up to. There should probably be some laws in terms of legality of things for society but that’s not morality. I’m talking about a moral code we hold ourselves to. So why should we really care about if we are being moral? Who’s judging us?
Also I think your idea that 2 societies with clearly conflicting morals would just mash together and figure it out is a little naive no offense. We are literally seeing clashes of “morals” today and have been seeing it for ages. And taken to the extreme, the jihadsist blowing stuff up…well that’s just their cultural morals. We shouldn’t judge them, they are right? Surely i assume you think it’s wrong to blow people up in the name of God? Sitting on a plane next to a jihaddist that tells you he’s going to blow this plane up in the name of God. And it’s the greatest honor and good he can do. He believes this to be moral and so does his whole society of people to believes this. Are you going to say, “well I don’t want to be like those annoying Christian teachers and impose my morals on him saying this is wrong. I will respect his cultures and religions morals” I hope not?
Yes, and clearly it has in the past, but prevailing morality can’t be changed on individual whim. It’s a group mentality, not an individual decision.
So it’s not real
Why not? It can still be very real.
there’s no real moral code we should bother to hold ourselves up to. There should probably be some laws in terms of legality of things for society but that’s not morality. I’m talking about a moral code we hold ourselves to. So why should we really care about if we are being moral? Who’s judging us?
Me. All the people I know and care about. All the people I work with and live near and participate in any groups with.
I understand what you’re saying. But to me, what youre saying falls short. It’s very like postmodernism is terms of how to look at morality. I would at the end, always revert back to nihilism and see absolutely no purpose and just do whatever I want. The moral argument is really one big thing that bothers me saying there isn’t a moral law giver or aka God. I see little purpose in following moral codes of people around me instead of doing whatever I find most pleasurable or convenient or benefits me the most just to please everyone. Maybe pleasing everyone and being accepted and being told you’re a good person is enough for you. But I probably would just revert to whatever I want to do.
Don’t you think that would create problems for you?
I don’t see it as a question of “pleasing everyone and being accepted and being told you’re a good person”. I see morality as something that enables people to get along with each other. You can go it on your own but as I said I suspect you’ll run into problems sooner or later. Anyway, that choice is yours. I don’t see any purpose in being told to get along by some supposed father figure, so we’re even. I believe religion can work to that end, but it’s a belief in the end, nothing inviolable or absolute. I don’t think that belief is necessary for morality. To me, religion is just another human construct.
Probably, but why does it matter the problems later when I’m not even guaranteed tomorrow. Like it’s said, I’d eat drink and make merry for tomorrow we die. I’ll always rather do what is best or most pleasing for me now.
Yes, getting along is probably a benefit of morality. But I feel like our definition of morality is somewhat different. Yours is what I would call more of a societal norms. For me morality is a higher code that’s beyond us.
For me the only real purpose of caring about morality (not legality) is if there’s some final judgement on how I lived my life in some way. Otherwise I can’t honestly say the consequences of tomorrow always outweighs the benefits of now in what I do.
Belief is certainly not necessary for morality. But if your argument is that morality is only beneficial to us getting along and so I don’t run into any problems. It’s not enough for me. I can be a extremely moral person and still run into problems and huge conflicts. Why not just do what’s best for me now when it can be over anytime. But my arguement is if there is morality, it seems like maybe there is something to believe in that makes morality actually real and meaningful.
That’s the Problem with all texts of the old Testament. Of course you can take these rules word for Word. But then you would allready get in trouble by wearing clothes made from more than one material.
Basically it’s safe to say that Jesus made a big update on this and he also ignored these rules.
Love your next, like you love yourself is what I as a priest would by.
For me, morality is a set of common rules and values people created to avoid problems in societies. It’s not something created or modified by any individual as @tempogain says. That is enough for me to think the morality is real, and care about it. I don’t need or want an absolute good existence to follow it.
and, the clashes have caused many problems, so people have tried to find solutions, right? I know it could be often solved by imposing one party’s morality, but, today, I think we need to find some point where both parties can agree.
our gods, by the way. I accept their existence as well as any other gods or God, but not believe in them.
If you said “without God, morality would not exist for me”, I felt no offence, though.
Technically yes, I was hoping no one really catches that But at a certain level, there must be some circular axioms I think they are called for any statement to be logical. And this is another long long conversation and my philosophic knowledge is limited there. It’s a mind fuck. I forgot who it was that pointed out Decartes “I think, therefore I am” also suffers from this headache.
But at the end of the day, I struggle with understanding and making sense of life and and world around us. Maybe I think too much…I test most of my ideas to the extreme to see if it makes sense. I can be a cynic or nihilist or at the very least a agnostic or deist. I don’t think much of human life without some sort of higher being. If we are just here for no reason, I really don’t care for fitting in and not run into problems for the sake of it. And why does me dying later mean any different than me dying now in perspective on time. Seems like it’s all a futile effort for the inevitable like Diogenes rolling a rock up and down a hill. Might as well enjoy the most I can now without regard for others. And I’m trying to be nice to others, it’s only so I benefits me not because i’m morally good. I’m just selfish and want to seem morally good for the benefits.
Doesn’t have to be called God or from any religion, just I guess a higher being beyond us to make sense of morals i guess. I just don’t see the point for following society’s “morals” If i do, it’s just so it benefits me to seem like I do.
I don’t know about that. A circular argument isn’t valid logically speaking. It might work for you, but it’s not convincing. I may equally validly say morality simply has its own meaning, if that’s your argument.
I get this. If we’re just talking about what we personally think of life with or without it, there’s not much to say. Anyone can have their own opinion on the matter.
It doesn’t seem any different from religious morality in that way. If you’re doing it just to please a God or to avoid punishment, what’s the difference? If you think it’s on the basis of some higher good, well we all can have our own ideas about what a higher good is. But I don’t think anyone really acts on the basis of such motivations as you describe in the quote above. Moral sensibility is part of our nature, whether you think it was divinely given or not. We couldn’t be the social animals we are without it.
All philosophical systems start with axioms (presuppositions), or non-provable propositions accepted as true, and deduce theorems from them. Like I said, this is some mind blowing stuff and hard to explain and out of my dept to go into and explain eloquently. You can look into it more yourself if you’re interested.
You are right for sure, thats why I find Christianity more tolerable in explaining some of my questions like this. The answer would be simple, yeah, you’re inherently fallen and will always come up short being good (God like) but thats ok and you’re forgiven. However the consequences of sin is your own shame keeping you from God’s grace.
But again, I struggle to think that God is real and struggle to think there is nothing at the same time.
This I also agree with. It seems that just our conversation trying to talk about it and make sense of it is evidence that we have some sort of moral compass innately in us.
Some of the most social and successful well thought of people are literally sociopaths with no morals. They seem to succeed because they don’t have or care for morals and recognize how to use it to their advantage. But i bet we could be social for those that do care and see the benefits of getting alone. I mean what benefit is there for me if my doctor called me now and said I got 2 weeks left. Do I care if i get along with others or do i just be selfish and do what gives me the maximum amount of pleasure in 2 weeks. And if taken to the extreme…is 50+ years really that much different in the big picture compared to 2 weeks?
I’ll see if I can find something later…
But at a certain level, there must be some circular axioms I think they are called for any statement to be logical. And this is another long long conversation and my philosophic knowledge is limited there. It’s a mind fuck. I forgot who it was that pointed out Decartes “I think, therefore I am” also suffers from this headache.